posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:09 AM
Quite a few members have responding to my first few posts in this thread, I am not going to reply to individuals as there are loads of other threads I
want to write replies to just now but if anyone has a specific question or point to raise then please feel free to do so.
My main point of contention I do not think I made clear in my previous posts, essentially what I am saying is that what the government may say makes
one a potential terrorist and what actually constitutes a terrorist are two totally different things. Every one of us has the potential to become
terrorists, but it does not mean that the state regards us as terrorists or even as “threats”. The two main groups that people on ATS like to rise
as “potential terrorists” according to the government are veterans and those who have a belief in conspiracies. It is true to say that those
groups may constitute “potential terrorists” but this does not mean in any way that the government intends to treat them as terrorists or define
anyone who is a veteran as a “terrorist”.
Lots of these lists that people present to show what the government regards as potential terrorists are catch all lists. Such lists are not
definitions of terrorism and that is what people don’t seem to understand, they argue form a position that “the government regards
veterans/conspiracy theorists as terrorists”. This is untrue; there is no legal definition of terrorism that is used in American law that explicitly
states that veterans are terrorists. Many of these lists also have a emphasis on racial and cultural profiling, I have to say that such profiling
does not work, it creates gaps in security so to say all “white” people, “Arab” people or “Muslims” are to be profiled racially as
potential terrorists only creates a gap in security and as such they are not advisable.
We all have the capacity to commit acts of terror, but that does not make us terrorists.